Steve McIntyre has a post on the Lewandowsky affair. It is a key one and a summary might be useful.
When questioned how he reported on skeptics in the Moon paper without surveying them, Lewandowsky said he had asked skeptics in 2010 to host the survey. He didn’t say who they were.
This came as a surprise. Searches showed no messages from Lewandowsky. Several skeptic bloggers reported no receipt. Subsequently, others fished out the survey emails. It was realized they were sent under assistant Charles Hanich’s name.The bloggers contacted each other and dug up the emails rapidly.
This was summarized on Jo Nova’s blog and other venues on a running basis.
A day before this, a post appeared on the Shaping Tomorrow’s World blog. In it, Lewandowsky posted names of the sceptical bloggers whom he sent survey requests to.
Steve McIntyre shows evidence Lewandowsky published the post after skeptics announced receipt of survey emails but backdated it. This would make it appear as though his post contributed to the bloggers finding the survey emails.
The Lewandowsky group rely on this chronology. The Fury paper states the names of the bloggers “…became publicly available on 10th September 2012, on a blog post by the first author of LOG12”. ‘LOG12’s first author is Lewandowsky.
Except, according to McIntyre’s analysis, the post was actually published on the 11th of September and not the 10th, but made to appear so.
The ‘Moon and Fury’ saga is now no more in the realm of a science debate. There are three occasions involving Lewandowsky and his group where they have been directly confronted:
- false representation involving quoted material in the suspended ‘Fury’ paper
- non-posting of survey at skepticalscience.com, and yet making calculations on its basis, in the ‘Moon’ paper
- apparent fabrication of blog dates and use of alleged backdated material to make claims in the ‘Fury’ paper
¹as of this writing.